Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Amplifier power
sniip
5. I have done tests where I lined up a pile of power amps, for example, a 10 watt Leak, a 35 watt Fischer, a 60 watt dynaco, a 350 watt kenwood - using the speakers I had at the time (AR-3) and the music I liked at the time (don't remember what I used), there was no question that the quality of the resultant sound improved with power - the low end went from muddy to crisp. A 700 watt amp that I tried was one notch better, but beyond my budget. I'm not going to debate this, you may hear differently, this is what I hear, at the same very soft volume level. Using the amps that you used, I suspect that the Leak, probably the Fisher, and perhaps the Dynaco (unless it was a ST120 rather than a Mk.III, you don't say) were tube (valve) amps. if so, the bass quality difference has as much to do with output transformers in the tube gear vs solid-state (the Kenwood and perhaps the the Dynaco - if its a solid-state amp), as it has to do with power. you may well be correct about the root cause of the improvement - I actually expected the Leak to sound the best, it certainly had the best reputation. As I think back, I think I had two dynacos - one was a 50 watt tube unit (mono), the other was a stereo 120. Nonetheless, tubes or not, with my speakers (AR3a) and my source (marantz 7T and a turntable - I don't remember the cartige now), sound quality, particularly at the low end, at VERY SOFT volume, was directly proportional to power. As I stated somewhere else, this finding was the exact opposite of what I expected, and I repeated it over and over to prove it to myself, so I doubt that preconceived bias had much to do with the conclusion 6. "properly" designed amplifiers is a completely undefined term, and there is no way to define it. You can write specifications, as voluminous as you want, and most folks will easily hear differences between amplfiers that conform to all your specs, whatever you choose to write in them. So, when the OP said "properly designed", he/she basically asked a non-question. Once you crawl out of the "consumer grade" stuff, it is your personal preference for a particular coloration that will help you decide which unit you like. Modern, solid-state amps sound practically identical, irrespective of cost. What differences that their might be are truly subtle and minute. While some audiophiles are willing to pay megabucks for amps that sound so close to their much cheaper cousins, that the differences are more imagined than actually experienced, for all practical purposes, the differences (if discernible at all) disappear into total unimportance after a few minutes of listening. The important part of choosing an amplifier these days is to get one with enough power for your particular speakers and your listening preferences with regard to playback level. the statement above about "practically identical" is misleading. it all depends on what you mean by "practical". When I bought my Mark Levison power amp (No 332), it replaced my trusty Kenwood 700M - they have aproximately equivalent power and seemingly similar specs, though the ML unit is quite a bit heavier. The difference was clearly audible. I tried other power amps also, some sounded better still, but I didn't feel they were worth the $$. I would argue that all of the amps I listened to were "properly" designed, but there were clearly audible differences. My test CD for all of these tests was a song from Gillian Welch's Hell among the yearlings album, played very softly - in no case would it have been hard to talk in a normal voice and be clearly heard - I used ReQuest speakers for the test - maybe some amps don't like those speakers, but it was what I've got. So, I can't argue subjective experience, I can only report my experience. I do agree that the power amp is one of the parts that has the least overall effect once you get a "good enough" one, and that the improvement going from a $500 amp to a $250,000 amp is smaller by far than is gained by going from a $500 preamp to a $5000 preamp. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Amplifier power
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 05:35:00 -0700, William Noble wrote
(in article ): sniip 5. I have done tests where I lined up a pile of power amps, for example, a 10 watt Leak, a 35 watt Fischer, a 60 watt dynaco, a 350 watt kenwood - using the speakers I had at the time (AR-3) and the music I liked at the time (don't remember what I used), there was no question that the quality of the resultant sound improved with power - the low end went from muddy to crisp. A 700 watt amp that I tried was one notch better, but beyond my budget. I'm not going to debate this, you may hear differently, this is what I hear, at the same very soft volume level. Using the amps that you used, I suspect that the Leak, probably the Fisher, and perhaps the Dynaco (unless it was a ST120 rather than a Mk.III, you don't say) were tube (valve) amps. if so, the bass quality difference has as much to do with output transformers in the tube gear vs solid-state (the Kenwood and perhaps the the Dynaco - if its a solid-state amp), as it has to do with power. you may well be correct about the root cause of the improvement - I actually expected the Leak to sound the best, it certainly had the best reputation. As I think back, I think I had two dynacos - one was a 50 watt tube unit (mono), the other was a stereo 120. Nonetheless, tubes or not, with my speakers (AR3a) and my source (marantz 7T and a turntable - I don't remember the cartige now), sound quality, particularly at the low end, at VERY SOFT volume, was directly proportional to power. As I stated somewhere else, this finding was the exact opposite of what I expected, and I repeated it over and over to prove it to myself, so I doubt that preconceived bias had much to do with the conclusion AR3s? That explains it. 15 Watts is nowhere near enough power to satisfy the requirements of an AR3. It was a VERY inefficient loudspeaker that required, IIRC, at least 25 watts/channel to drive it. The leak was likely clipping most of the time! Of course it sounded bad. 6. "properly" designed amplifiers is a completely undefined term, and there is no way to define it. You can write specifications, as voluminous as you want, and most folks will easily hear differences between amplfiers that conform to all your specs, whatever you choose to write in them. So, when the OP said "properly designed", he/she basically asked a non-question. Once you crawl out of the "consumer grade" stuff, it is your personal preference for a particular coloration that will help you decide which unit you like. Modern, solid-state amps sound practically identical, irrespective of cost. What differences that their might be are truly subtle and minute. While some audiophiles are willing to pay megabucks for amps that sound so close to their much cheaper cousins, that the differences are more imagined than actually experienced, for all practical purposes, the differences (if discernible at all) disappear into total unimportance after a few minutes of listening. The important part of choosing an amplifier these days is to get one with enough power for your particular speakers and your listening preferences with regard to playback level. the statement above about "practically identical" is misleading. it all depends on what you mean by "practical". When I bought my Mark Levison power amp (No 332), it replaced my trusty Kenwood 700M - they have aproximately equivalent power and seemingly similar specs, though the ML unit is quite a bit heavier. The difference was clearly audible. I tried other power amps also, some sounded better still, but I didn't feel they were worth the $$. I would argue that all of the amps I listened to were "properly" designed, but there were clearly audible differences. My test CD for all of these tests was a song from Gillian Welch's Hell among the yearlings album, played very softly - in no case would it have been hard to talk in a normal voice and be clearly heard - I used ReQuest speakers for the test - maybe some amps don't like those speakers, but it was what I've got. Of course the ML sounded better than the Kenwood. You just bought it, paid a ton of money for it, and your expectations were high. New is always going to sound better than "old" that's why sighted evaluations - especially by the owner of the new gear - are so unreliable. Connect those amps to your speakers using an A-B switching device, match the levels to within 1/4 of dB, and have someone else randomly switch between them (where you can't see them doing it) while you listen, and then come back and tell us which amp was which. As long as neither amp is being driven outside of its capabilities and as long as the Kenwood (which, I take was rather old, since Kenwood hasn't been sold here for many years and is called "Trio" in the rest of the world) is in original working order (no tired capacitors) then I doubt seriously if you could tell the difference. So, I can't argue subjective experience, I can only report my experience. I do agree that the power amp is one of the parts that has the least overall effect once you get a "good enough" one, and that the improvement going from a $500 amp to a $250,000 amp is smaller by far than is gained by going from a $500 preamp to a $5000 preamp. I'm not even sure that's particularly true. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Amplifier power
the statement above about "practically identical" is misleading. it all
depends on what you mean by "practical". When I bought my Mark Levison power amp (No 332), it replaced my trusty Kenwood 700M - they have aproximately equivalent power and seemingly similar specs, though the ML unit is quite a bit heavier. The difference was clearly audible. I tried other power amps also, some sounded better still, but I didn't feel they were worth the $$. I would argue that all of the amps I listened to were "properly" designed, but there were clearly audible differences. My test CD for all of these tests was a song from Gillian Welch's Hell among the yearlings album, played very softly - in no case would it have been hard to talk in a normal voice and be clearly heard - I used ReQuest speakers for the test - maybe some amps don't like those speakers, but it was what I've got. Hello, i had a pair of Quests a few years ago, their impedance goes down below 2 Ohms in the treble, many amplifiers can't handle them. I had an Accuphase P 300 (2x150 w) and on some records at certain moments the protection circuits would shut it down. I'm not surprised the M Levinson did the job well. Best regards, Jean |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Amplifier power | Tech | |||
Amplifier power | Tech | |||
Amplifier power | Tech | |||
Amplifier power | High End Audio | |||
Amplifier power | High End Audio |